House Judiciary Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB422
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB422”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1407
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1407”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1865
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1865”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2036
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2036”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2119
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2119”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2225
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2225”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB422
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…siness. When we left off last week, Representative Rice had House Bill 422. We laid it on the table. We had heard just from just a lit…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB720
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “the statute. No, it's in the statute. It is now in Senate Bill 720, and that's where”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Sign up on the sign-up sheet next to the coffee pot. Members, today is about the last day you can get a House bill out of this committee if you want it to become an act. That's still going to take a lot of encouragement from the Senate. So, other than the first bill which we laid on the table, it is my preference to take almost exclusively Senate House bills today. Now, once we exhaust the list of House bills that want to be run, then we'll go to Senate bills.
Maybe later this afternoon, and particularly on Thursday, we will take all the Senate bills they want to send us. I want you all to pay attention on the floor, because this committee may be called back upon the call of the chair. So you can anticipate meeting more than just the two hours and 45 minutes that we'll meet today. And lunch will be brought in at our usual time, and we will take a quick break for lunch and then keep right on going. So just keep that in mind.
I know people have got a lot of things to do, but we sure encourage you to be here so we can have a quorum and we can take care of the people's business. When we left off last week, Representative Rice had House Bill 422. We laid it on the table. We had heard just from just a little bit of his presentation. It's my understanding that Representative Rice is ready to continue that presentation. Representative Rice,
you are recognized for Senate Bill 422. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for my hoarse voice this morning. Len Foster, we know, spoke in favor of this bill and testimony, and we ran out of time.
And Senator Holland, who carried this bill in the Senate, is now with us with my voice, and I'm going to turn it over to him if you'll recognize him. And we do have a witness to testify also, Mr. Cliff McKinney, at the proper time. I'm
sorry you recognize. I apologize. Go right ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bruce Holland, Senator over at Greenwood.
He's here today to present 422 to you again or continue to present it to you. We've got a gentleman here with us today that's going to offer some testimony. and Cliff McKinney, and at this time I'd like to turn it over to him and let him speak. Sure, Mr. McKinney, welcome to House Judiciary. Good
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
2:36
to see you. Go right ahead. Thank you, Representative. Again, my name is Cliff McKinney. I'm an attorney at Quattlebaum Grooms, Toll & Borough. I'm actually here representing two different groups, the Arkansas Bar Association and the Arkansas Realtors Association.
Both groups want to see this bill passed because we think it's in the interest of promoting justice and doing the best thing possible for everyone involved. One thing I would like to clarify about this bill is that the law today is that a realtor is allowed to testify in court. We're not trying to change the law on that. The problem is the way the law is written today, there's some ambiguity over whether a realtor could actually be hauled up and fined by the Arkansas Appraisers Board
because the realtor gives opinion testimony as to the value of property in a court proceeding where they're allowed to give testimony, which seems contrary to our concepts of how justice systems should be run. And if you're allowed to give testimony to then be charged for giving that testimony. And so the whole purpose of this bill is just to clarify that if a realtor acting as a realtor, not holding themselves out as an appraiser, identifying what they are, that they are a realtor,
gives an opinion as to the value of real estate, as an expert witness, they are not required to register as an Arkansas appraiser. It's a clarifying bill is really how we look at it. And I'll be glad to answer any questions that I can. Thank
you, Mr. McKinney. A couple of questions from the chair to start off with, and
then I think Mr. Gillum has a question. In my practice, I regularly call experts, and the trier of fact basically determines whether the person is an expert or not,
and the trier of fact gives credibility to that expert. With this bill, I'm concerned that you may be stepping on the toes of the judge and the trier of fact and the rules of evidence. So can you help me understand why we should pass this bill saying
that anyone is an expert witness? Isn't that a question for the trier of fact? Well, it
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
4:51
would be a real estate or broker who provides expert witness testimony.
I don't think we're trying to change who can give expert testimony. As a matter of fact, as the law exists today, a realtor is allowed to give expert testimony, and it is up to the trier of fact. So if you bring in a realtor, it's up to the jury or the judge who's ever sitting as that trier of fact to determine what weight to give that person or whether to determine that that person is an expert. I don't believe this bill is declaring that all realtors are experts. It's just saying that if a realtor testifies as an expert, which they're allowed to do today,
they aren't going to be subject to any sort of penalty from the Arkansas Appraisers Licensing
Board for it. Correct, but not only is a realtor allowed today to testify as
an expert, the statute as written out, anyone's allowed to testify about opinion of value. It's left to the trier of fact to do that. Isn't that not correct? Under the current law. Correct. You're amending. So I don't understand how your amendment makes anything clearer because right now the current law is no person shall be – any person shall not preclude any person from testifying, whether they're a realtor or somebody who just has a lot of land.
I mean, it's up to the trial of faculty to determine whether they're an expert. I don't understand how this law
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
6:15
provides any additional protection or is even necessary. Well, the whole purpose of it is to protect the person who's actually giving the testimony. The question is who has to have a license in order to avoid getting in trouble for giving testimony. So the concern is that if a realtor stands up, because as you said, right now any person can, and a realtor gives testimony, they could then be violating the Arkansas appraiser's licensing laws.
And so all this is saying is that you are allowed to give that testimony, and you're not going to be in violation if you give it. It doesn't make you an expert. It doesn't qualify you as an expert. It's just saying if you give that testimony and you are licensed as a
realtor, you don't also have to be licensed as an appraiser. Well, they can only
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
6:59
be in trouble if they hold themselves out as an appraiser, correct? Well, my understanding is one of the things that's leading to this bill being needed is there have been some instances where realtors who have not held themselves out as an appraiser but have given testimony as to the value of property have then been charged as being an appraiser.
Speaker 11
7:15
Is that a widespread problem you're aware of, Mr. McKinney? I'm not aware of it being a widespread
problem, but I have heard it is a problem. Is there anyone
here from the appraiser's licensing board that can testify toward that? Okay, we'll get to you. I'm glad you're here. That's good. Mr.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
7:30
Gillum, you have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of to follow along the lines of thinking that the Chair had there, Mr. McKinney, are you familiar with the bill, I guess, that has made it all the way through now, that we passed earlier in the session that was referred to, I guess, among us as the BPO bill? I'm somewhat familiar with it.
Speaker 28
7:46
I wouldn't call myself an expert on it, but I'm
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
7:48
somewhat familiar with it. Okay. In the context of that bill and looking at how this works along with that bill, is this bill necessary and with what that bill – it seems to me that we've already accomplished this through that other bill. Well, I would say this is a
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
8:03
different issue, and this is just a matter of who has to have a license in order to give that expert testimony. So when a realtor who is licensed as a realtor gives testimony, the question is, can they then get in trouble because they gave that testimony?
And this bill is just meant to clarify that they can't get in trouble with the appraiser's licensing board as long as they don't hold themselves out as an appraiser. Now, obviously, if they hold themselves out and they stand on the stand and testify falsely that they are a
Speaker 32
8:30
licensed appraiser, certainly they should get in trouble for that.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
8:34
But this bill just addresses one narrow situation. Okay. It was my, just in the way that that other bill was not only through presentation, through testimony and everything, we basically made sure that they couldn't get in trouble for doing that in all circumstances in the other bill.
So I don't know why this is necessarily separate from that. My understanding, and again, I don't pretend
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
8:57
to be an expert on the BPO bill, but my understanding is that deals with when a realtor is giving an opinion of price for a refinance, giving it to a bank. This is in the context of a realtor testifying in a courtroom. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any additional questions,
members? Mr. Walker, are you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
9:22
Isn't there a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court that addresses who may be an expert witness? Yes, sir. Is that Rule 703 or 603? I honestly don't remember which number it is. Does this impede the authority of the court to prohibit punishment to one who has given testimony
in a court where the court has certified one as an expert witness?
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
9:53
I don't think it inhibits anything that a court can or can't do. As I see this bill, it is preventing someone who gives the testimony, a realtor, from then being charged as an appraiser. Is there a fan or something that goes along
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:06
with the charge? That is my understanding. Is it also a crime?
Speaker 28
10:12
I don't know if it's criminal, but I do
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:15
believe there is a fine. So you're really trying to address membership, aren't you? the
people who are members of the Realtor Board and you're trying to address agents
and it's to deter agents who are novices or just new agents from holding
themselves out to the public as being competent to make appraisals. Well, it's that,
but also I think the main gist of it
Speaker 32
10:39
is if a realtor testifies as to opinion, And the trier of fact can give
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
10:44
that opinion whatever weight they want to or don't want to give that. It's just that the trier of fact or the person who's standing there serving does not have to also or providing testimony does not also have to have a license as an appraiser.
If they're licensed as a realtor, they can give testimony and be immune from prosecution, essentially, because they're not also an appraiser, as long as they don't hold themselves out as an appraiser. Well, I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:11
didn't know that you all had some prosecution board under the Appraisal Association. Is there something? Is there some board that prosecutes folk in the appraisal? My understanding is
Speaker 32
11:19
that they do, that if someone holds themselves
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
11:22
as an appraiser who isn't, and that absolutely is something that should happen. I mean, if a realtor or anyone stands up and says that they're an appraiser and they're not,
there should be some sort of prosecution for that. If I tell you that I'm an appraiser and I'm not, But that should not prohibit someone, particularly a realtor, who has lots of experience in that field from giving their
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
11:42
opinion as to the value. Well, what if a lawyer gives an opinion saying that he's an appraiser and he's been doing this work and he's not a member of the appraisal board? Is that person subject to prosecution by the appraisal board? If
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
11:54
they claim they're an appraiser and they're not licensed as an appraiser, they could be. Yes, sir. If they're not a licensed appraiser.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:01
I didn't know that lawyers had to be licensed to sell real estate or to engage in real estate transactions by another board. Well, lawyers
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
12:10
do not have to be licensed as an appraiser or as a realtor or anything in order to practice law. This is a matter of if a realtor gives testimony in a courtroom, is that
Speaker 32
12:21
realtor then going to be subject to some sort of an action because they were giving an opinion as
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:28
to value. Can you cite one example in Pulaski County which necessitates this bill?
Speaker 33
12:33
just one in Pulaski County yes sir I'm not personally aware of any though I'm
Speaker 50
12:41
not going to say there aren't any alright that's my area thanks just to follow up
Using your logic here, we ought to provide this same protection for every profession that may testify as an expert. And, boy, that just seems like a slippery slope. We could have any professional who's licensed. We could have a contractor giving testimony as an expert. Should we provide the same exemption for a contractor? Should we do the same for anybody that may testify as an expert? Actually, I
Speaker 11
13:25
think this is a very narrow situation. And that's personally, when I look at
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
13:29
this, there's really only two people who are going to give expert testimony as to the value of property and likely to give it.
And that would be either a realtor who, because of the nature of their business and what they do for a living, they're familiar with the values of property, or an appraiser, which is someone who is licensed to be able to go and give a value as
to property. Sure, that relates to property, but I mean someone giving expert testimony in a subject that may be something that they're an expert on or alleged to be an expert on, because you're here trying to protect a realtor from being subject to fines by an appraisal board, and that's great, but if a realtor holds himself out as an appraiser, then they ought to be subject to whatever fines.
Anyone who holds himself out as an appraiser ought to be subject to a fine. And so that's really not an issue for expert testimony. If I called someone up and said, hey, I want an appraisal done on my house, and they gave me an appraisal, and they were not an appraiser but said they were, they ought to be fine. whether they're given expert testimony or given an invalid appraisal. Wouldn't you agree with that? Absolutely. So should I have another bill that says if you give an appraisal
to someone and you're not an appraiser on their house? I think it's a different situation that you're describing.
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
14:42
What we're describing here is when a realtor gives testimony as to what the value of property is. The question is whether that is something they could get in trouble for as an appraiser. And that's really the heart of the issue. And this is narrowed only to the courtroom. We're not talking about other scenarios where a realtor might go out and give an appraisal or value or opinion as to property. I believe that is covered by the broker's price opinion bill that's out there. This is just narrow in a courtroom.
If an appraiser gives this sort of testimony, the question is, could they then be subject to some sort of discipline by the Arkansas Appraisers Licensing Board? And it's a very narrow issue as I see it. All right. Any additional questions for Mr. McKinney?
Senator, would you like to follow up before we go to public testimony? Go ahead. Okay. We'll have
a few people signed up. Signed to speak against the bill is Mr. Jim Martin with the Appraisal Licensing Board. Mr. Martin, welcome to House Judiciary.
Would you please state your name and tell us who you're with? And
Speaker 58
15:50
we've got some questions for you after you
Speaker 60
15:53
give your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. to the committee. If I may, I would like to make one opening comment that the board opposes this particular legislation because we don't think it really clarifies what the proponents of the bill seem to think it does. And secondly, I would like to note also that it stimulates
more confusion with any issues that we have as a licensing board than it answers. But specifically to your question in regards to the specific case that has brought this to bear, given the language of the existing statute, it says that any person, and there was a reason for that when the framers of this legislation introduced it, and it qualifies that any person can testify before court
Speaker 61
16:47
because, as Mr. Walker has already pointed out, the court can establish who's qualified and who's not. In this case, it put the exemption, I put a caveat in that statement that anybody can testify, however, if they hold themselves out as a practicing fee appraiser, that they could be subject to discipline from the Appraiser Licensing Board simply because the appraiser equates to evaluation services
and not a BPO or a broker's price opinion for purposes of a listing or selling. And as a result, we think the language that is now takes care of anybody testifying and that this is Bill 422 in all due respects to Mr. Holland is irrelevant. I would also point out that this board has never had any complaint against an appraiser for testifying from a real estate agent or anyone else testifying in a court proceeding.
The case, individual case at hand, was one in which the individual became licensed, had a bad report, he testified in a condemnation proceeding, and that ended up in a consent order that was drafted by his attorney, and as a result he admitted that he would not testify any longer, but that was only from the settlement out of court in lieu of a full board hearing
in regards to the quality of his report, not the fact that he testified. The board has yet to take issue with anyone testifying, nor have we had
Speaker 60
18:44
anyone that testified and held himself out as an appraiser, which we entertained a complaint. So we submit to you, Mr. Chairman, members of
Speaker 61
18:55
this committee, that the language we say is more specific. It isolates who can in this sense of testifying and confuses the issue rather than clarifies it.
questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I want to make sure I understood what you were saying with your scenario there that happened. The person that was subject to your licensing issue, that person was
Speaker 60
19:28
or was not an appraiser? He was a real estate agent. He was an agent. He was an agent, and we had a complaint based upon or contact based upon that he was preparing a report to give a deposition in a condemnation case.
And did he hold himself out as an appraiser? It was not the fact he was holding himself out. We issued a cease and desist. He subsequently became registered, which is a classification of licensing as an appraiser, proceeded in the testimony, then dropped his license, and it was on the basis of that particular report, while he was licensed, that the board ended up with a consent agreement settling the issue outside of a full board hearing.
Mr. Martin, let me ask you, why did you issue a cease and desist
Speaker 60
20:24
for a real estate agent to give his opinion? He didn't hold himself out as an appraiser. He
was providing evaluation services under the definition of our statutes. So is it your
position that a real estate agent can't provide a valuation service, can't, for
Speaker 60
20:42
example, give a BPO. Evaluation services, because there's a distinction between a BPO and a market value opinion.
Well, a BPO is the broker's opinion of value. That's in
Speaker 60
20:52
the statute. No, it's in the statute. It is now in Senate Bill 720, and that's where
more confusion comes in. So if this were occurring now, after the broker's price opinion, after that bill passes,
Would your board issue a cease and desist order by somebody who – someone did that? No, sir. So this situation you think won't happen again since we've clarified
that a realtor can give a broker's price opinion?
Speaker 60
21:17
Under 720, we believe he's free and clear.
And so you did – you all issued a cease and desist order simply because you thought he was violating the appraiser statute because he was giving an opinion of value? Right. Well, that gives me a little concern that you guys reached that far. Okay. Let's see if anyone else has
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
21:39
any questions. Anyone else that has a question for Mr. Martin? Mr. Gillum? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Martin, other than this one time, had you reached that same conclusion
Speaker 60
21:49
in other instances? We've had a number of complaints from the Highway Department and from cities where condemnation issues were at hand.
And in those, we have contacted the individual who was providing those appraisal services in advance of giving deposition or assisting his attorney, the property owner's attorney, in making a determination as to whether to go to court or not to go to court. And we have made contact with individuals, and most of the
Speaker 58
22:17
time they have gotten registered or licensed as appraisers meeting in qualification. May I ask a follow-up?
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
22:26
Going along the lines of some of the earlier questioning, has this only occurred, and you've only had to reach these conclusions with real estate agents, or have you also done this with building contractors or other people who may? MR. Primary real estate licensed individuals, yes, sir. Okay. But it has happened with other?
Speaker 69
22:51
case that we've had other than the. Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Shepard, you're recognized.
Speaker 71
22:59
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure I'm clear on the current state of the law going forward. If I retain a real estate agent to testify in court, which oftentimes, particularly in some of the more rural areas of Arkansas, and also with regard to clients who maybe can't afford to pay for a full appraisal, many times parties will bring real estate agents in to testify as to value,
and oftentimes both parties have real estate agents giving opinions. But the presidents say to the law going forward, will I be able to have a real estate agent, or any person for that matter, give testimony in court without having to worry about the appraiser licensing board
Speaker 60
23:57
coming after that person. Under SB 720, you have that prerogative to use that individual without the board pursuing
Speaker 76
24:06
any kind of action based on the evaluation services that person is providing. Will
Speaker 71
24:14
there be any, furthermore, you'd mentioned that there had been instances where maybe board action was not taken, but contact was made with individuals or others to alert them that this was an area of concern to you. Will there be any contact made with anybody regarding this going forward? I mean, in my view, what I'm trying to get to is, shouldn't this be left up to the court to weigh and determine whether someone's opinion is based on fact
and whether that person is qualified? And I'm just trying to
Speaker 60
24:48
figure out where we're at. That has not been an issue. It's the preparation to make the statement in the past that's been an issue when they are issuing a value opinion as opposed to a broker's price opinion. Now, at this point in time, moving forward with 720, which has now moved out the exemption for issuing broker's price opinions from any concern by the appraiser's licensing board,
it's now under the Real Estate Commission. So this board will not have anything to do with that real estate agent doing broker's price opinions, testifying in court, or
Speaker 61
25:26
paying for this position. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any additional questions? Thank you,
Mr. Martin. Also signed up to testify for the bill, where on the fourth side is, well, no, that's Cliff
McKinney. He gave his testimony. Anyone else here who wants to speak for the bill? I think someone signed up just a second ago. Anyone want to speak for Senate Bill 422? Okay, back to the against side. Bob
Speaker 29
26:03
Bowhorn is here to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Speaker 61
26:10
Chairman and members of the committee. I might as well disclose this right up front.
Speaker 89
26:17
I am a lobbyist for the Appraisers Association, But I am also a licensed real estate broker and a licensed appraiser, residential appraiser. And I think that it's interesting that we just passed Senate Bill 720, which, as I understand it, transfers the regulation of the broker's price opinion over to the Real Estate Commission.
So it's up to the Real Estate Commission to draft regulations and rules to determine how that is handled. And it would be my understanding that a real estate agent or broker can give testimony as an expert witness and give his opinion of value of real estate in court without any repercussions from the appraisal board
since that burden has already been shifted over. And going forward, that should not be a problem. So the bill, as I see it, is just not necessary. And like Mr. Martin says, it does confuse the issue by bringing opinion of value back into the appraisal law, which just certainly isn't necessary anymore.
And as far as testifying, I guess I appreciate your question, Mr. Chairman, about any other professions being asked to testify. should we eliminate any reference to their profession as being expert testimony. Now, as far as being an expert in court, I most certainly would want an appraiser
to testify as to the value of property if I had an issue that I needed the value of in court. But now that the real estate agents and all real estate agents can testify in court and only have to answer to the real estate commission, I don't see why they can't testify at any rate. And I'm a little bit surprised that the Quantabomb Grooms firm is involved with this
because, as I understand it, they drafted this Senate Bill 720, which looks to me like it would have solved the problem. And I know that Mr. Grooms personally was out here lobbying for it and being heavily involved in that. So I just don't see the necessity for this bill. And it doesn't preclude anyone from testifying unless they hold themselves out to be a fee appraiser.
and being licensed and and i i just you know i certainly wouldn't hold myself out to be an attorney uh... because i am not and i thought about uh... going for a license but i'm not sure what to anymore at any rate uh... i uh...
Speaker 67
29:51
i would be happy to ask answer any questions thank you mr bowhorn members any questions for mr bowhorn
Speaker 78
30:02
mr shepherd The question I have is, if this is unnecessary and really doesn't do anything,
Speaker 71
30:08
why is there so much opposition to it? I mean, is it just because you truly believe it's unnecessary and that's why there's opposition to it? Or is there something else? I mean, that's what I'm trying
Speaker 87
30:20
to do. I have not been able to determine a good reason for having it. And I can't see that
Speaker 89
30:25
we should pass laws that are totally unnecessary. And this is one of those laws. in my opinion. Thank you.
Speaker 93
30:38
Mr. Eubanks, you look like you've got a question. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I wish you'd been here all session, sir. You have a statement, I see. All right.
Any additional questions from Mr. Bowhorn? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Bowhorn,
Speaker 67
30:59
for your testimony. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anyone else who wants to speak for or against Senate Bill 422?
Seeing no one, let me ask Mr. Martin if he doesn't mind coming back. One second. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, you know the House now. We live stream our proceedings, so you're live over the Internet and we're recording this. I want you to tell me, if this bill doesn't pass, are you all going to, as a licensing board, bring action against a real estate broker who seeks to give an opinion of value in a court proceeding?
No, sir. Won't do that. We're not going to have this problem again. That's resolved now, correct? Yes, sir. All right. We've got that recorded. I appreciate that, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Thank
you. Senator Holland, would you like to close for your bill, Representative Rice? Senator
Holland? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What the bill is going to do is just to clarify that a real estate broker can testify
so long as he doesn't hold himself out as an appraiser. Now, to give you a little personal, one of the reasons that I'm carrying this bill, I have a farm there two miles from City Hall at Greenwood. Very unique piece of property. After I bought it, I wanted to buy some other property, so I was going to refinance this property. We had to go through the appraisal process. The appraiser came, did a very diligent job,
and appraised the property for about $1,600 an acre. The whole time telling me that I had a very unique piece of property that he couldn't find comparables to give it a real just value. Now then, they appraised the property at about a million dollars, $960,000 for the land and about $340,000 for the house. A few years later, we decided to sell the property,
and I consulted with a real estate agent at that time. As to what my property was worth on the open market, what could I get for it? and we talked about maybe $2,500, $2,700 an acre, and we wound up selling the land for $1,400,000 and the house for $330,000. So that's $1,730,000. So there's a significant difference here in the way a good, honest appraisal can be done of that property
and what it's truly worth in the open market. And I think that's one of the most important things. If you had your property up in a court hearing and there was a, for whatever reason, maybe he spoke about a highway maybe widening or something, and what its true value is, I think it's important to have that real estate agent there to give their opinion. Just what the value is on the open market, what they could sell it for,
not what you could get a loan, not what the loan value is of that property. And I'd appreciate a good vote on this bill. I think it's a good bill. I think it does clarify the problem. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm closed at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Senator Holland. Mr. Rice, Representative Rice, would you like to add anything to that?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, just to remind the committee that it is felt like this bill is needed regardless
of the Senate Bill 720 we talked about, that a realtor with expertise and land value should not be prevented from testifying, that the trial judge in the case that was related to here is the one that pointed out that someone could testify, and the board said the judge, My understanding did not understand the law, and it should not be a trial judge shouldn't decide.
The judge should decide who will testify and not the appraiser board. So it's felt like this is a bill that will define that, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Rice. Members, what's the pleasure of
the committee? Mr. Eubanks? Mr. Eubanks has made a motion to do pass as a proper motion. Any question or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of passing Senate Bill 422, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed, no. I'm sorry, Representative Rice, the noes have it.
Senator, your bill does not pass. Thanks, Chairman. Thank you, Committee, for your time.
Speaker 104
36:33
Thank you. Members, we are now moving to House Bill 1865. Representative Post is here to present her bill. Thank you.
I know you've been here a couple of times running this bill. We apologize. It's taken so
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
37:01
long to get you here, but we're ready to hear it, and you are recognized. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Committee. House Bill 1865 is to clarify the offense of custody, and I have with me Lori Capress from the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinators Association. And what this amendment does is it adds the word keep to 526-503, the Interference with Custody Statute,
which will make the statute read the same as the statute that covers the interference with court-ordered custody, 526-502. This change was requested by the Arkansas Prosecutors Association. And if I can explain it to you, it's really a simple request. And I can keep it under 12 minutes as requested when I was here two times ago. So that's my goal.
Interference with custody of a child breaks down into two categories. It's interference with court-ordered custody and then two, interference with custody. The first, interference with court-ordered custody, provides that a person may not take, entice, or keep a child. And, however, the interference with custody, which is no court order, does not include the word keep. For example, in May of last year, an unmoving mother took her child to Oklahoma to visit the biological father, and this biological father refused to return the child.
This was not a court-ordered custody case. Thus, the prosecutor had to use 526-503, which is the bill that we are considering. However, that statute only covers takes or entices. Because this child was actually brought to him, the prosecutor could not charge the biological father for keeping the child.
So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer you. and Lori
could probably answer you better thank you Ms. Post Mr. Wright you have a question or a motion any additional questions members seeing none anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against House Bill 1865 I don't have anyone signed up Ms. Compears would you like to add anything Mr. Chairman I think Ms. Post
Speaker 108
39:35
has done a good job explaining the bill. Basically, we're just trying to make these two statutes consistent. We
appreciate your consideration. Okay. I guess we do have questions. I'm surprised. Representative Shepard, then Representative
Speaker 71
39:47
Gillum. I just was wondering what are the situations in which or what's an example of custody that's not court-ordered? Usually that occurs when
Speaker 107
39:57
the parents have never been married. Okay. Mr.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
40:02
Gillum? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just kind of a curiosity question that popped up with the example just now.
In the example you gave, with it being somebody in Oklahoma, how would you resolve that? I mean, would
this have prevented an Oklahoma situation, being an Arkansas law? Well, if
Speaker 108
40:26
the court could take jurisdiction since the child actually was a resident of Arkansas, I believe. But even if it had been in Arkansas, you'd have the same situation. If the biological father did not return
Speaker 118
40:38
the child, you'd still have the situation where you couldn't charge.
Speaker 37
40:43
Okay. All right. Thank you. Seeing no additional questions,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
40:50
Mr. Walker. I had indicated that I wouldn't ask a question. But shouldn't there be
some preliminary judgment of who the custodial parent is or who is proper custodian before one seeks to make a judgment like this? I'm trying to understand how you get to the question of custody
when parentage hasn't really been
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
41:23
lawfully established. First, I'm going to answer by that I would be disappointed if you didn't have
a question, Representative Walker. And I think that it
does, within the 526-503, it does distinguish who has custodial rights. there is one person who does
but I'm going to let Ms. Caprice clarify that let me explain in a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
41:54
lot of situations that I'm aware of a grandparent is often the one who raises the child and in a practical de facto situation the grandparent is the custodian of the child so that when the grandparent lets the putative father see the child and the putative father does not return the child
to the grandparent, the question of custody may be lawfully presented. And somebody then has to get a court determination as to what is the right thing to do with it. I understand what you're trying to do, and, of course, I'm going to vote for
it. But I don't think that this really helps to address
Speaker 107
42:41
the situation that you hypothesized very well. The provision in 526.503 lists out that it does take into consideration
Speaker 108
42:48
if you keep the child from the custody of the parent of the minor,
including a married woman having legal custody of an illegitimate child under 9-10-113, which is kind of the situation we described. but it also takes into consideration the guardian of the minor, public agencies having lawful charge of the minor, or any other lawful custodian. Thank you. Mr. Ratley? I've
Speaker 125
43:18
got one question. What if the custody has been decided and one of the parents gets the kids
and then every time the other parent is supposed to get them, she comes up with excuses and says, I'll take you, you have to go to court before you can get anything else. Will this
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
43:38
help that problem? I don't think this is about that. I don't think this is, this provision is not about that. Okay. I mean, I don't think this is really about that, but is it, Laurie? I think the prosecutor could always take that
Speaker 108
43:49
into consideration before filing any charges, but I don't know that it specifically addresses that. No, sir. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, members. Mr. Wright, you recognize? Motion do pass. Proper motion. Any
question or discussion? Saying none, all in favor of passage of House Bill 1865 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Ms. Post. You passed your bill. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Post. Members, we're moving on. We're at House Bill
1407, Representative Hopper. There we go. How are you doing, Ms. Hopper? You're recognized. Do we have an amendment for this?
Members, we're going to pass out an amendment to this bill. If I remember correctly, Representative Hopper, we've heard this bill once. This
is an amendment you're making to the bill. Isn't that correct? That is correct. All right.
Let's see if we can't get this amendment here on the bill. Members, this is Ms. Hopper's own bill, own amendment, without objection. Well, I see Mr. Rice has his motion.
to allow the amendment, all in favor of allowing the amendment, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right, Ms. Hopper, you are recognized to present House Bill 1407 as amended. Go right ahead. MS. Thank
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
45:43
you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. Last week when Sheriff Montgomery,
who will introduce himself officially here in a moment, and I were before you, there were some very
legitimate questions raised at this table, and we appreciate those questions, and we appreciate your input. And from those questions and that input, the amendment that you have today is just that, is a result of that.
And based on, I guess, at this point, I would ask if Sheriff Montgomery could be recognized officially to further explain. Sheriff,
please state your name and you'll recognize. John Montgomery. I'm
Speaker 136
46:19
the sheriff of Baxter County. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We introduced this last week, and there were some questions raised by Representative Walker and Representative Shefford and some others, and basically we pulled this, went back out in the hallway, and several members of this committee came up and said, we love the concept.
We just don't like the fact that there's a penalty for someone that doesn't report. And basically what this does is allowing a computer repair person to report the presence of child pornography if they find it on a computer. If you look at the amendment, we've taken the word shell out, we've taken the word mandate out, we've replaced it with the word may, and we've also taken any penalty, the class A misdemeanor, we left it under existing law, but moved this section down below that. So with that, I believe we've addressed the concerns, legitimate concerns that this committee
raised and would appreciate. Thank you, Sheriff. Representative
Hopper, are you ready to take questions? We are. Any questions, members? Seeing no questions. Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1407? I don't have anyone signed up, I don't believe. I'm sorry,
Representative Hopper, do you recognize the close for your bill?
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
47:47
We would ask for a good vote. And again, thank you for the concerns and then your input
from last week. I have a motion by Representative Gillum, I believe, of due pass. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Congratulations, Ms. Hopper. You have passed House Bill 1407 as amended. Once again, thank you.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
48:18
Ms. Hopper, the other bills, all Senate bills. Yes, sir. Actually, just 1-8-10 that was laid on the table last week so that we could get the fiscal impact study here, which you should have in your packets. Would you allow me to run,
as I mentioned in the beginning, all these House bills first? We've got a couple more. We may get back to that. We'll put you at the
top of the Senate list, but let us run these House bills. That's okay. because they don't come out today, they won't be an act.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
48:50
Thank you. Thank you. And I guess further clarification on House Bill 1990, we're going to pass over. We're going
to pass over? All right. All right. Thank you again. Mr. Vines, are you ready to run House Bill 2036? You're recognized. Mr. Vaughn, you're recognized
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
49:25
Thanks, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee I'm pleased today to bring you House Bill 2036 which is a bill to allow a person the ability to provide a statement in his or her will regarding pre-termitted errors This bill came to me from a situation over into Shea County from one of our fellow members, and I agreed to run this for them. For those of you who don't know, this section deals with pre-permitted errors,
which are errors that are left out or omitted in a will, and all it does is add language that a testator can add language to his will stating that any pre-permitted error that he or she doesn't know about, They can leave a specific amount or a specific devise, and it will defeat any further claim against the estate of that will. It also adds language there in the last section on page 2 that says any specific devise under this section defeats any other claim that pre-trimented error may have against that potential error.
this bill gives court discretion it prevents future pain to family from suffering through unending DNA testing exhuming of bodies that sort of thing and it simply puts another tool in a drafter's box when they're doing estate planning with that I'd be happy to answer any questions I do know there are some people here to testify on the bill thank you Mr. Vines A question
first from the Chair, I don't do much estate planning and try to stay away
from it, but let me make sure I understand, and I think we briefly talked about this, so this child that the person has died, didn't know about, didn't include them in their will, under this bill that child would take as if the person died intestate, is that correct? If they didn't leave this, the language we've included
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
51:40
in page two, unless they left a statement that said, I may not know about you,
Speaker 23
51:49
but if you do come up. Right. It's a delicate situation. Right.
I understand. I understand. I'm trying to be delicate with my questions. But assuming the person that died didn't know, and an heir is found, what would the statute provide for that
heir that's left out of the will
and this language is not included? It would not change. It wouldn't change at all. So whatever the statutory amount, they're subject to get. Okay. All right. Let's see.
Anyone else has any questions, members? Any additional
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
52:35
questions? Mr. Walker, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How do other states address this problem, to your knowledge? I don't know that I could fairly answer that, Mr. Walker. So what would be a state of first impression effectively depriving illegitimate children
from anything other than a minimal share of their parents' estate? Well, not necessarily. Well, I mean, what's the advantage of doing this?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
53:03
I mean, is there some compelling necessity for this? I think there have
been some situations, and again, I'm speaking hypothetical only, where there have been large estates, large holdings, and after the fact, children came forward and became a problem for the estate.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
53:24
Well, I understand, but in those situations, under our existing law, So illegitimate children take as equally as legitimate children, and why would you, in effect, further punish an illegitimate child who is illegitimate by no fault of his or her own by depriving that person of a right to share as
other children share in the deceased's estate? Well, without defending that testator,
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
53:55
or maybe that testator's desire that that child not share in the estate. And all this is doing is saying is giving that testator the power to, I guess,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
54:13
not fortunate but to further omit that child. Well, do you not agree that the earlier law is more humane, especially it sets out that where children are innocent and unwitting, and in circumstances which they did not create and they don't even know who the parent is
and the person may have gone to great lengths to camouflage or deceive his or her identity as a parent that they should at least get some consideration and be treated as others who have been more favorably accepted. I mean, I'm trying to understand the public policy behind this other than to say, well, if I know about you, you get something. If I don't know
about you, then too bad. You're just a wild seed sown without any consequence.
Forgive me, but was there a question in there? Yes, I mean, what is the public policy? The question, what's
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
55:17
the public policy? I think it's just, again, to give the discretion back to the testator and also
to give the court some discretion when it comes to whether
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:28
that statement's valid or not. Does this situation apply only in the situation where there is a will? I believe so, yes, sir. So the person has to knowingly say that if I have any wild seed out here, they are disqualified.
Speaker 159
55:43
Now, we don't define wild seed in that. All right. All right. Thank
you. Any additional questions, members? Mr. Steele, we recognize our
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
55:54
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was confirmed with Representative Shepard, so I hope
you didn't cover this, but effectively, if you did state that you didn't know of any wild seed and it turns out you have no other heirs, then your property could actually escape to the state. I mean, there could be no heirs at all,
even if you did have an heir that you were unaware of and you specifically said that you didn't want any heirs that
Speaker 159
56:24
you were unaware of to inherit? Are you asking for
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
56:28
legal guidance, Mr. Steele? I'm asking, even in the case where you have no heirs at the time of death, but you have said in your will that you didn't want any unknown heir to inherit, then even in that case, the unknown heir would not inherit, the property would have sheaped to the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
56:44
state. I guess so, but I think that would be a very rare situation.
I would agree with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, members. Any additional questions? Seeing none, anyone in the audience who wants to speak? Well, let's see. We have some from the Bar Association, I believe. Lynn Foster.
Speaker 166
57:09
There we go. Ms. Foster, you recognize. Please state your name, and you're welcome to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I represent the Arkansas Bar Association, and I also teach in this area.
The pretermitted child statute is a very bright-line rule right now. Right now it states that if a child is omitted from someone's will, that child will get the share they would have gotten had the testator died without a will. So, in other words, if there were three children, then that omitted child would get a third, and that obviously will come from somebody else's share. Because it's a bright-line rule, sometimes it can lead to unfair results.
People here have been bringing up the problem of the nonmarital child that the testator may not ever have known about or maybe knows about but doesn't want to recognize in any way. This situation can also arise, however, in cases of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity where you have a caregiver, say, come forward and they don't know very much about the law and they draft a will that doesn't leave anything to the children and omits them. Well, in that case, the children are going to get their intestate shares
and the caregiver would receive nothing. Our problem with this statute, you know, we're, at least I personally, I'm not all that happy with the pretermitted child statute. There are some problems with it. But first of all, it says that the bright line rule is still going to apply unless the testator includes a statement that he or she has no knowledge of any pretermitted heirs. I think this may lead to some testators not telling the truth.
and the bright line rule applies if the person doesn't include the statement in the will. So right now, you often have pretermitted child problems arising because the testators don't know what the law is. And in Arkansas, we allow people to write their own wills. Holographic wills are valid in this state. People who omit children's names right now aren't going to know about this new law anyway, so they're not going to include such a statement. And in that case, the old bright line rule applies. Even if they do include this statement and say that they have no knowledge of any predermitted heirs,
well, then the burden is turned over to the court because the statute says that the predermitted heir will only recover a minimal share. It does not define minimal in any way. How would you define minimal? Courts are going to be looking up this word in the dictionary. The dictionary says minimal is the least possible quantity, or another definition is barely adequate. it. So is minimal relative to the size of the estate? If the estate is $100,000, minimal is going to be $100. If the estate is $10 million, minimal is going to be half a million
dollars. Are we going to use some absolute measure of minimal, $1? Is it going to be relative to the heirs' financial situation? In answer to Representative Walker's question, I believe most, if not all, states already have pretermitted child statutes. Many of them are quite similar to the statute that we have now. The Uniform Probate Code, which is the law in about 17 states, has a more complicated,
not a bright-line rule, but it's probably a fairer rule, and it's designed to cover a variety of circumstances. And so for these reasons, I would urge you to vote against this bill. All right. Thank you
Speaker 167
1:00:53
for your testimony. Other questions? Representative Walker. Representative Walker. Is
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:00:58
this a matter that would be more appropriately addressed by further study, in your
Speaker 166
1:01:04
opinion? Yes. Frankly, what I would recommend is that the probate section, and I know I'm on streaming
video right now, so I'll make this promise. I'd be happy to set up a committee and come up with a suggested legislation for the next session. But yes, I think it needs further study. I think there are better solutions out there to this problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 92
1:01:28
All right. Are there other questions? Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Anyone
Speaker 170
1:01:34
signed up to speak for the bill?
I don't see anyone. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against the bill? All right. Seeing none, Mr. Vines.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:02:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair I understand the points of the witness I would point the committee to page 2 where it talks about leaving the determination of minimal there in lines 12 through 14
to the discretion of the court I think that's one thing this does is it does leave that discretion with that I'd appreciate a favorable vote All
Speaker 170
1:02:30
right. Thank you. We have a motion by Representative Wright. Do pass. All right. We have a motion before us. All those who would favor, would you say aye? Aye. Those opposed? No. All right. Representative Vines, the chair rules that you did not pass your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:02:54
Thank you. Representative Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is House Bill 2225. Regarding first-time offenders, specifically, Committee, this bill addresses Act 346, which is commonly referred to as the First Offenders Act.
I believe this bill basically just clarifies one thing that has stood out in the Act, and that is that certain serious felonies, and they're defined in Section 5-4-501, and they're all heinous crimes. You can look them up in that statute. You'll find murder, rape, aggravated robbery, things like that. This clarifies that those particular offenses are not eligible for automatic expungement under 346. It does not mean that they're not expungible offenses.
They can still be expunged under other statutes. But this just clarifies that they're not eligible for automatic expungement under the First Offenders Act. I don't believe they were ever intended to be. I think this bill just is a good cleanup bill from the Prosecutors Association that will make certain that no one accidentally slips through the cracks under Act 346 and has a murder charge expunged automatically without any judicial oversight. I'll be happy to take any questions. All
Speaker 170
1:04:26
right. Are there questions for Representative Steele?
All right. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the bill? All right, I don't see any.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:04:46
Representative Gillum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that we do
Speaker 170
1:04:52
pass. All right, we have a motion do pass. If you would favor the motion do pass, would you signify with aye? Aye. Those opposed? Representative Steele, your bill goes out do pass.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:05:04
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a Senate bill as well, but I assume that will be on the Senate calendar?
Yes, that's correct. Thank you. All right, members, we are now
at House Bill 2119 by Representative Hammer.
We have an amendment coming for this bill. Actually, let's go ahead and pass out the amendment that we have here. Let me explain what's happening, guys. For the sake of time, we're going to run with this one. There's an amendment on this bill that has been agreed to by a number of parties, and it's a good amendment. However, the amendment failed to include two representatives' names as co-sponsors, McLean and Pierce, and not one to leave them out.
We're asking for a new amendment to come to you. It's going to be the exact same amendment. It's just going to include Representative Pierce and Representative McLean as co-sponsor. So this amendment is a substantive amendment. When that amendment gets here, we're going to get Representative Hammer to sign it, and that's going to be the one we engrossed. But just so we don't delay, given our concern with time, we're going to go ahead and run this. Without objection, we'll substitute the new amendment for this one that will add Pierce and McLean. Everything else is the same. Is that okay with the committee? no without objection we'll do that all right great uh representative hammer you are recognized to
well actually let's get your amendment on um this is an amendment to house bill 2119 it's representing hammer's own bill own amendment uh without objection we're going to amend this all in favor i oppose no all right mr hammer you are recognized to present your house bill 2119 as
amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, may I ask that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:01
you would just remind the audience that if anybody's here that wants to speak in favor or against to sign in, please, so that would be at the appropriate time.
So reminded. Anyone who wants to speak for or against House Bill 2119, please sign in. I've got a few already that have signed up. Mr. Hammer,
Speaker 180
1:07:21
you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. And also the guests that I know are in the audience. This bill has been not through
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:07:29
one crockpot, but two or three, and I believe we have finally got to a point where all parties that are going to be impacted by the decision that we make as a committee to pass this out of here are in agreement with, and I'd just like to kind of summarize some of what this bill, as amended, will achieve.
This will actually add a new subsection to the Arkansas theft by receiving that's entitled theft by receiving a scrap metal for any scrap metal recycler who receives, retain, or disposes of scrap metal they know to be stolen. The second thing it does is give law enforcement additional verifiable information to help the investigators with the collecting of scrap recyclers at the time of the purchase. Some of those things, and you'll see them listed there in the amendment, but just to
point them out, some of those things include requiring the seller to provide written documentation about where, when, and from whom they acquired the scrap metal requires that photographs taken to the scrap metal and the sellers by the scrap metal recyclers are clearly identified so as to help law enforcement in their investigation to catch scrap thieves. Expands the list of scrap metals that can't be purchased without verifiable records collected from individual sellers to include all scrap metals except for aluminum, canned, scrap iron.
It eliminates confusion in one of the existing laws of which we have spoken to Representative, and when I say we, I'm talking about Chairman Williams and myself, talked to Representative Bradford, and she is in agreement with what's going on with this amendment and what it will do to hers that is already enacted. It will actually bring a little clarity and strength to that, and it requires the verifiable information to be downloaded daily into the statewide law enforcement database by anyone who is purchasing scrap metal. Another thing that this amendment will do is that known convicted scrap thieves who
are felons will lose their right to sell scrap metal in Arkansas. So once they are identified, caught, and Duprost run the course and they are convicted, they will not be able to sell scrap metal in the state of Arkansas. The amendments are the product. As I mentioned earlier, this has been an ongoing joint effort between the scrap yards and entities who have been victimized by the thieves, and this is something, unless somebody comes to the table in a little bit and tells us differently, this is an agreement that all parties feel will help,
as one person said, help take the ball a little further down the field to get us where we want to be as far as catching the thieves and stop some of the destructiveness that's being done to our society. The common ground here is that just like utilities and cable companies and landlords, and as was brought out in the discussion, even scrapyards, are they themselves victimized by those that they have sold the product to and break in at night and come back around through the front door, and this will give them an additional tool to help catch those individuals as well.
And with all that being said, knowing that we've come to the table with a large support group, I would like to just stop now and answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Hammer. First, let me say thank you for your hard work on this bill. Most of you all know that last session I worked hard on a scrap metal bill that I think also moved the ball down the court. This, I think, is also an agreed-upon bill that does the same. This amendment is a positive amendment, and I appreciate your hard work.
Members, there's a physical impact study that has also been passed out that relates to the amended bill. And, again, Mr. Hammer, this is a very good effort, and I really appreciate your work here. Let's see if we've got any questions. Mr. Steele, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:11:21
Hammer. My concern last time was some of those scrap metal dealers who are currently in the business, and I believe it would require that they have some kind of contractor's license
or some kind of license that some of them may have. Is that no longer
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:39
in this bill? That is in the bill in the form of you can submit that as part of, but not necessarily required to, the verifiable information. In fact, if I'm going to
Speaker 180
1:11:51
try to find it in the amendment, and Chairman Williams, you may help me
identify it. In the amendment, it's on page 2, under section 2, with regard to reasonable written documentation.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:05
At the top of page 2 under 1744-102, Section 2, reasonable written documentation means a written document that includes the filing information provided by the seller's scrap metal to the scrap metal recycler, the name of the entity or individual from whom the seller acquired the scrap metal, the date the seller acquired the scrap metal, number three, the physical address from where the seller acquired the scrap metal, Number four, an affirmation of certification from the seller in the written document that
he or she is the owner of the scrap metal or is an employer, agent, licensed contractor, licensed HVACR, plumber, electrician, or other person authorized to sell the scrap metal on behalf of the owner, and affirmation or certification from the seller in the written document that he or she has not pled guilty or no contest to or have been guilty of theft, burglary, or vandalism when the offense involved a scrap metal. Okay. So
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:13:03
this is not going to put any current scrap vandalers out of business, any of these?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:13:09
I think it would be fair to say, and they can correct me or verify me in a minute when they come to the table if they want to to speak, this part was actually worked with worked with the scrap recyclers as part of what was a good arrived at decision. So it's coming partially
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:13:32
from them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, any additional questions? Mr. Walker? Yes. In your Section 4 on the last page, I noticed that you have a civil and a criminal penalty.
and under the civil penalty a person may be assessed $500 per violation and under the criminal penalty may be held guilty of a class A misdemeanor why do you have both of those especially one which puts a person in a position where he must give testimony against himself.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:14:17
I'm going to ask if you would accept this, and if this is not out of order, Chairman Williams, would you help out on this particular point because we worked on this together so that I don't misspeak and so that the two lawyers can talk on the same level. Would that put the chairman
in an awkward position? Not a problem. I'm happy to speak to this amendment because I did work on it, And I'm pleased with it and pleased to disagree to Mr. Walker. Prior to this amendment, a person who didn't comply with the subtractor would be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor prior to this.
So we're moving this Class A misdemeanor from a Class A misdemeanor to a violation. What this contemplates is when a scrap dealer fails to comply with this statute, fails to take the proper information that's required under the statute, fails to take reasonable written identification, as opposed to them being guilty of a crime, they're going to be guilty of a fine, which they have agreed to. Well, I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:15:22
understand that, but it doesn't say that in the writing.
It says any person who normally gives false information is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Right, and that goes to the person selling the scrap metal. So you thought that this bill applied basically to scrap metal dealers rather than
the – are you changing the definition to – No, not at
all, but the person who would give false information would be the person who is seeking to have their scrap sold to the scrap dealer.
The scrap dealer is not the one giving the information in order to sell scrap metal. They're
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:16:06
receiving the scrap metal. Well, why is it? I mean, don't you think it would be better to just leave out Section B? And since you're making this a civil penalty, let it clearly be a civil penalty that only applies to
the scrap metal dealer? No, absolutely not. Because if a person still scrap metal comes in and gives false information, I want them to be guilty of maximum penalties. Scrap metal theft is a huge problem in this state,
and I think you can have some folks testifying here about that. So I want them to be a person who knowingly, or a person who steals scrap metal or steals, like they did my HVAC unit, to scrap the copper. I want them to be... I may want the same
thing, but the title of the bill is... And that's current law,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:16:48
what you're talking about. We're not changing that. That's
current law. By receiving and the... No, that's not the title of the bill, Mr. Walker. That's the title of that section. That's one section. We've added one section to the bill which allows for scrap dealers who knowingly receive stolen property.
then they also may be guilty of a criminal offense. The section you're talking about is the person who actually steals the property. And if that person is
in conspiracy with a scrap metal dealer and that scrap metal dealer is knowingly receiving stolen property, then
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:17:18
the scrap dealer also may be subject to criminal penalties. In all due respect to the learned chairman, learned lawyer, distinguished representative, the statute doesn't speak in any way with respect to conspiracy. but I made my point I think
you're right it does not the theft by receipt I shouldn't have called it a conspiracy because you're correct because it's not a conspiracy but the theft by receipt section really relates to the scrap metal dealer not to the person stealing the scrap metal it's kind of hard to see these statutes when you don't have them understand when you don't have the entire statute I actually had asked that we get all the statutes so you could see this together and there was a mistake so I didn't want to cause further confusion by handing out a
statute that had a mistake in it. I apologize. But I do have the code if you'd like to look at it in my office.
Any additional questions? Seeing none, let's see who wants to speak for or against the bill. First on the
against side, let's see. I don't think we have. Hopefully we don't have anyone on the against side since Reverend Hammer has worked hard to get an agreement here. First on the for side, Mr. Ronell, Steve Ronell, would you like to speak for the bill?
Steve Ronnell
Unverified
1:18:30
Please identify yourself and tell us who you're with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Ronnell, and I'm with a family-owned scrap metal recycling business called Metal Recycling Corporation.
We have headquarters here in Little Rock as well as scrap recycling facilities in North Little Rock and Searcy, Arkansas. I know that the committee is pressed for time today, so I'm going to try to name this tune in less than one minute. But first, I'd just like to say that Arkansas recyclers, as you know, Mr. Chairman, did not initially support House Bill 2119 as introduced. nor did we support the amendments that were before this committee a week ago today, but today we do support House Bill 2119 as amended because it tries to strike that very delicate balance
of cracking down on a very serious problem of scrap theft in Arkansas while at the same time not hurting the rights of legitimate citizens and legitimate individuals who are recycling and cleaning up the streets and the highways and the neighborhoods of Arkansas legally And by not hurting those people with this language, we also are not hurting small family-owned businesses like mine and like the many scrap recycling companies who are providing a vital service in your communities and your legislative districts today.
So all I want to do is say a few quick thank yous, Chairman Williams, first to you for being a true leader and a true statesman and a consensus builder on this important issue, not just in this session, Mr. Chairman, But since the day you walked into the General Assembly, we're very, very grateful for your continued leadership. I'd also like to thank Representative Hammer for being a very thoughtful legislator on this issue and for listening to and working with recyclers on this important bill. I'd also like to thank Sergeant Watson. Sergeant Watson, if you're here, please raise your hand.
From the Little Rock Police Department, he has hands-on experience in trying to investigate, crack down and catch scrap thieves in Arkansas, and he has been a model of working with our industry to try to help us do that. And lastly, I want to thank the members of this committee. I can't single anyone out because each of you has really done an amazing job of helping us strike this delicate balance of not hurting law-abiding citizens who want to recycle and not putting scrap companies like my family
on business out of business. So thank you very much to each of you, Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. That's the end of my statement. Thank
you, Mr. Ronnell, and thank you for those positive statements. You can come to this committee any time you'd like. Any questions, Mr. Ronnell? Seeing none, we have Reverend Hezekiah Stewart from Moody Chapel who wants to speak for the bill. And, members, I might add that if you want an idea of how bad of a problem this is, I would suggest that you look in the B section of the Arkansas Democratic Gazette today because Because unfortunately, Reverend Stewart's church was hit by scrap thieves just this week.
A terrible situation. And Reverend Stewart, unfortunately, you're here in a timely manner. But please come and tell us who you're with. And you're prepared. You're welcome to give testimony. Thank
Speaker 191
1:21:34
you, sir. I'd like to know, can I take up an offering before I
Speaker 18
1:21:40
get started? It all depends on where you're going to leave it. Okay. I'm going to leave it in my pocket.
Speaker 191
1:21:49
Thank you, sir. First of all, this is a serious matter that's going on in our community.
A few months back, thieves came and took my van and a truck, took it to a place where they could get it crushed. Secondly, at the watershed itself, I think it's about the second time at the watershed itself where they went on the roof and began to cut copper wires from the units there. We have a church in the east end of Little Rock, 800 Kelvin Street.
About three times we have been vandalized there. Our units and the copper has been stolen. At one point, they went in the church, went in the roof, and began to remove the copper from the facility. We moved to Southwest Little Rock, 5630 Mabelville, Pike, and there were two units that we never got an opportunity to turn on before they ripped it off and tore it up.
We're not a rich congregation by no means. Most of the people we serve are poor people, people who we congregate together and to do what we can to help one another. I've spent 34 years of my life here helping people in this state, in every county almost, in the state of Arkansas. And it does grieve me a little bit to work hard to help people and then have to face this stuff almost on a regular basis.
But this time, a lot of our people worked very hard to raise monies to move in this facility so we can continue to render service. And I felt really violated. I felt my whole congregation violated when we found out that the main unit was torn apart. Wire cutters were used to access and they went in and this destroyed the unit.
While we do have insurance, and I think that will cover some of the costs, there's still going to be some other costs because it was cut so bad, we're going to have to take walls out in order to repair some of the damage that has been done. Now, somewhere down the line, we can't afford any longer to be petty with these rules and regulations regarding people who are doing these kind of things and costing a lot of
people a lot of money and a lot of headaches and everything else. And I'm hoping that you would get real serious about the penalties regarding these things. You know, I'm a man of the cloth, and I'll forgive them, but they ought to spend some time while I'm forgiving them. So the deal is here is that, you know, in terms of dealing with crime, I know our jails are overcrowded, and sometimes laws are reduced,
our penalties are reduced because of the overcrowding in the prison system. but this is a tragic situation for the church we had to worship in the coal and I just don't want to contend with that kind of stuff anymore so I'm hoping that you would even revisit this bill and stiff the penalties where they would know and recognize not only for the guys who are stealing the copper but even for those who are buying it
some of these fellows are very smart they're able to make deals with other people who can make deals with other people they've got to be people in high level positions to be able to make things happen for some of these guys who are stealing they'll do it kind of like if I owned a company and I'm not saying anything against any company but somehow they're continuing to do these things. So somebody else is involved, a middleman, somewhere is involved making
it possible for them to access resources as they remove these items from people's homes and businesses and things of that nature. So we're working on trying to get ourselves back together. But my friend, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee and those of Those of you who will make these laws, if the laws are not working, you've got to find a way to fix it.
And I'm hoping and praying today that some of these guys, the laws will be so strong that if they even understand it, even if they can't read and write, they'll understand it. So please, whatever you do with this law, I'm asking you to please make it hard and tough, hard and tough for the thieves and for those who will receive these things. Now, I recognize, Mr. Chairman, and I'll conclude with this.
Times are very difficult for a lot of people. The economy is still bad for some people. So for some of the people we serve, the economy has never been good. But the idea is that the economy is very, very bad for a lot of people. When babies are crying and stomachs are without food, people are going to find some way to try to survive. And this is why in addition to all of this, this state and others will have to do a whole
lot of things to help out in terms of employing people, because that's one of the problems as a result of this. The other issues would be centered around the uses of drug and alcohol. You've got to have money for those things. But I want you to hear the language, the emotions, and the feeling of hurting and broken people. When you can hear that, I really think then I think then, at some point in time, when you do sit down and craft these laws, I think
you would include some of those things and it would be a whole lot better for those who may be thinking about doing the
Speaker 193
1:28:39
same thing. Thank you so very much for your time and for this bill, and I just hope you make it
stronger. MR. Thank you, Reverend Stewart. Would you accept questions? MR. Yes, sir. We have some questions. Let me just in response to making this bill stronger. I think this bill is a proper balance. This bill is stronger than one instance you just talked about. Under this bill, under the amendment presented by Mr. Hammer,
if a scrap metal dealer knowingly receives stolen merchandise prior to this bill, there was really no crime. This bill adds the crime of theft by receiving, and that person could be subject to up to six years in jail if they knowingly receive stolen scraps. So I think we are making this tougher, and I appreciate your statements. And so we've got two folks I know that won't have questions for you. First, Representative Rice, followed by Representative Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In all seriousness, I'm
just going to say amen, motion at the proper time. I'm sorry, Walker. Oh, I'm sorry, you're just amening.
He likes to hear the amen, why he's preaching. That's
Speaker 37
1:29:42
kind of how he does it. Amen, amen. Hallelujah. Mr. Walker, I'm sorry, it said Hammer, Mr. Walker. Yes, Reverend
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:29:50
Brenton, have you read this bill? No, sir. All right. So what you're doing is just giving a general discourse on crime and punishment as you see it in today's society. And as I experience it, yes, sir. And you are not then suggesting that somehow or another the scrap metal dealers
and the persons who would illegally obtain scrap for purchase or for sale are in some kind of collusion. Are you saying that? I'm saying that that's a possibility. I see. But I understand you implied that, but you don't have any direct evidence of that, do you, Reverend, despite all of your wisdom and belief about how things happen in the world? No, sir, I don't have any hardcore evidence, any
Speaker 191
1:30:42
more than the fact that I've been ripped off several times
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:30:47
and they had to take it someplace to somebody. But as I know you, you've been ripped off about 30 years. ever since you've been with the watershed and you've been saying the same thing which is basically that the plight of our people is sufficiently dire that there have to be constructive programs to address the problems of unemployment under education and non-education and better attention
by the justice system to the problems of those people who have been up to hand
Mr. Walker I appreciate that line of question and I gave liberty to our guests Would you confine your questions to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:31:23
the bill? Well, I just wanted to make sure that he was well received, that basically he's fully received. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Any additional questions? Mr. Hammer, you're... I'd like to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:31:35
ask you a question. I used to serve under a pastor who said, what you do for one, you've got to do for everybody. So you set a precedence with every action
that you take. But would you please, because I didn't quite hear, name your ministry again,
and you wouldn't be above receiving offerings, would
Speaker 191
1:31:54
you? No, sir, at all. Not at all, sir. The ministry is the Watershed Human and Community Development Agency. And we have another one over in Southwest Little Rock called the Moody Chapel Faith-Based Initiative. Those two ministries are working together to bring some relief to the people in our community with light water, gas, rent, you name it, and they come to
Speaker 193
1:32:19
the watershed and to the church for it.
Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Members, any additional
questions for Reverend Stewart? Seeing none, Reverend Stewart, thank you for your testimony today and for being here. Next we
Speaker 200
1:32:43
have Alan Trammell with the Arkansas Realtors Association. Alan, please state your name and you're recognized. Alan Trammell, I'm a realtor. I represent
Speaker 201
1:32:50
the Arkansas Realtors Association. And as you very well recall, the last couple of years when in the last session you, Chairman,
worked diligently with realtors and other organizations to comprise a bill that would address the theft of copper and other metals, and that was, we thought, a very good bill. This bill addresses the issues that perhaps we missed. Whenever there's a thief or somebody to buy their goods that's going to happen, I don't think we'll ever stop it, but I think that this bill addresses many of those issues in a favorable way that's beneficial to all parties. And the property owners, the landlords, the Arkansas Realtors Association that represents
the property owners favor and support this bill. Thank you. Any additional
questions? Any questions for Mr. Trammell? Mr. Trammell, thank you for your testimony. MR. Thank you. MR. From the Lurk Police Department, we have Barry Brewer and Rusty Watson. I'm not sure if both are going to talk, but you
Speaker 202
1:33:59
both recognize. MR. Mr. Chairman, representatives, I'm Barry Brewer.
Speaker 203
1:34:02
I'm a lieutenant with the Little Rock Police Department. I mean, one of my areas of responsibility is to investigate this type of crime, just here to show our support for this bill and reiterate what a problem it has become. Just to give you a little bit of statistics, in 2010, we had a total of 36 copper thefts through this time of end of March of 2010. Again, so far this year in 2011, we've had 193, 54 of those have been targeted churches.
Some of the areas other than churches range from AT&T, energy, home builders, construction companies, as I said, churches, school districts, landlords, to normal homeowners that are affected by their air conditioner or backflow preventers being taken. We just want to show our support for this bill for law enforcement. Mr. Gilliam, do you have a
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:35:02
question? No, sir. I have a motion for limited debate at the
proper time. Well, Mr. Gilliam, this is the proper time.
I will say this is the last person signed to
speak, so I will accept that motion if you'd like or you can withdraw it since this is the last one. I will withdraw if brevity is on the agenda. I appreciate that. Thank you
very much. Would you like to provide testimony as well, sir? Would you state your name for the record? My name is
Alan Watson. Mr. Watson, you're recognized, and Mr. Gilliard would like for you to be brief, if
Speaker 205
1:35:38
that's okay. Having investigated several of these incidents that Lieutenant Brewer is talking about,
I think that this will help us, law enforcement across the state, be able to identify where these items are coming from. They're going to the salvage yards. It will help us out tremendously. and I'll ask that this bill be considered to be passed. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Watson, we
appreciate your testimony. Any questions, members? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Mr.
Hammer, you are recognized to close for your bill. In keeping with the order of a while ago,
Speaker 180
1:36:08
I'll be brief, but I do want to point out that a favorable pass on this bill
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:36:14
will help address all areas of scrap metal theft, not only, and some of the focus has been on the heat and air, but there are other entities, too, that are the recipients of thievery. and this will put a blanket statement across it to whether it will help the law enforcement. This bill is part of a continuation of a journey that started two years ago, and we're taking another step. And we may have to come back in two years and four years and six years. We'll just have to visit that in the future. But this is a bill that is taking us one more step on the journey,
and so I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. And I would like to say thank you publicly to everybody that helped work on this on both sides of the issue. Everybody brought their ideas to the table, and so it
is a teamwork effort. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Members, let's do a little housekeeping here. We actually, on 2119, previously
we actually amended his bill, though it never went to the House floor, it's never been gross. So I'm going to recognize a motion by the Vice Chair to expunge our vote on House Bill 2119 amending with amendment number one.
It takes two-thirds of the quorum. Without objection, I'm going to take that amendment, and I'm going to ask all those in favor of expunging our vote from last session amending House Bill 2119. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right. Now, Mr. Hammer has closed for House Bill 2119 as amended today. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Hammer. You have passed your bill. Thank you. Members, we're going to pause for a few minutes. Lunch is in my office.
We're going to pause, grab a box of lunch, and come on back, and we'll get started here in just a few minutes.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB422
HB1865
HB1407
HB2036
HB2225
HB2119
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice Chair
Unverified
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 32
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 50
Speaker 58
Speaker 60
Speaker 61
Speaker 69
Speaker 71
Speaker 76
Speaker 29
Speaker 89
Speaker 67
Speaker 78
Speaker 87
Speaker 93
Speaker 104
Representative Leslee Milam Post
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 107
Speaker 118
Speaker 37
Speaker 125
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 136
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 23
Speaker 159
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 166
Speaker 167
Speaker 92
Speaker 170
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 180
Steve Ronnell
Unverified
Speaker 191
Speaker 18
Speaker 193
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Speaker 205